States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

There is a growing movement in some states to conclude that Trump is already disqualified under the 14th Amendment and they may remove him from the ballot. This would set-up legal challenges from Trump that could end up at the SCOTUS.

The 14A disqualification doesn’t have any procedural requirements, it simply says that a person that does those things can’t serve in those offices. It a state says it applies to Trump, it would then be on Trump to show that it didn’t (either because what he didn’t doesn’t amount to the prohibited conduct, or that president isn’t an “officer” as intended by the amendment).

States are in charge of the ballots and can make eligibility determinations that are subject to appeal - there is actually a fairly interesting body of cases over the years with ballot challenges in federal court.


More on the legal argument in favor of this:

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[J-DONK]

If Republicans are smart, the Supreme Court “handlers” will push for them to uphold this and make it apply to all states. Trump has been nothing but a loser for them, ever since he won that one election in 2016. He lost the House in 2018 and 2020 and the Senate in 2020, his hand-picked candidates lost them the Senate again in 2022, and the House was only flipped in 2020 because of new maps in NY state. Several states have flipped governorships, and several states have flipped both chambers to Dems. He’s a loser, politically.

If Rs want to have a chance to take back the WH, they will need to get Trump off the ballot.

This is conspiracy brained and I love it. You want to add fuel to this fire? Nikki Haley has a ton of money behind her, and polls better vs Biden.

 

[samiam5211]

If the SCOTUS upholds the Colorado decision, why wouldn't it apply to every state?

 

[MT15]

If the SCOTUS upholds the Colorado decision, why wouldn't it apply to every state?

I think each state would have to apply it to their own election because elections are run by the states. Of course he would be finished because enough states would apply it.

 

[MT15]

I think he’s feeling quite desperate.

 

[MT15]

 

[samiam5211]

I think each state would have to apply it to their own election because elections are run by the states. Of course he would be finished because enough states would apply it.

Well, it wouldn't impact the results unless states that Trump could win do it.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

it'll take Arizona, Michigan or Pennsylvania to put the dagger in.

 

[MT15]

Well, it wouldn't impact the results unless states that Trump could win do it.

Good chance for several states to do it. It could gain steam, remember if SCOTUS either upholds the states’ right to do this or just passes on reviewing it, then there is precedent. These suits are brought by Republican voters for the most part.

 

[superchuck500]

This idea that I’m seeing everywhere from MAGAs that this is a Democratic scheme to keep Trump off the ballot is just stupid. The plaintiffs were mostly registered Republicans and an Independent or 2, IIRC. No Democrats would be able to file this, as I understand it, since it was concerning the primary.

Yes - the plaintiffs are Republicans.

 

[Bayouboy]

I'm sorry, I can't stand Trump, but this is not how you want to beat him. If convicted, yes.....but not now. This will never hold up.

 

[MT15]

I'm sorry, I can't stand Trump, but this is not how you want to beat him. If convicted, yes.....but not now. This will never hold up.

It may not hold up. But if it is overturned, then we will know that the originalists on the Supreme Court are simply political lackeys. This does meet the criteria to be disqualified from holding office, and there definitely are qualifications to hold office. It will be fascinating to see what the proud Federalists do with this, how they can overturn it without abandoning their principles.

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

If the SCOTUS upholds the Colorado decision, why wouldn't it apply to every state?

I don’t think it would apply by its own force - but it would certainly prompt petitions in every state to remove him. And then those would have to work through their state courts. Many would find him ineligible quickly, following the SCOTUS ruling. Others of course would resist and it would probably require additional appeals to the Supreme Court to resolve.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm sorry, I can't stand Trump, but this is not how you want to beat him. If convicted, yes.....but not now. This will never hold up.

Have you read the Colorado briefs or the full opinion?

The CO action resulted in a fact-finding action at the district court, appeals court decision, and state supreme court decisions - it didn’t just materialize out of partisan thin air.

This really all turns on two questions: Is the presidency an officer for purposes of the clause and did Trump engage in insurrection?

For it to not hold up the Court is going to have to find at least one of those things not to be true - which certainly is possible or perhaps even likely. But I don’t think any of us can just dismiss the result (either for or against) based on gut feelings. There’s a case here and there’s a record of conduct.

 

[MT15]

Nancy Mace is vacuous. Right up there with Gosar, Comer, and the rest.

 

[superchuck500]

Nancy Mace is vacuous. Right up there with Gosar, Comer, and the rest.

She's become so awful.

Nancy, why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[superchuck500]

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm not sure what you think due process is but this case began with a petition in state district court - and Trump opposed it. And then, after proceeding and ruling by the district court, it went to the state appellate court, where Trump was the appellee. And finally it was heard and decided by the Colorado Supreme Court after full briefing and oral argument.

That, my friend, is due process.

You are the legal expert around here, but how can a lawsuit against Trump be considered due process?

Jack Smith threw every charge he could at Trump, but he didn't even charge Trump with inciting an insurrection. Why would these Colorado judges think they should be the ones determining that?

Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to try to apply section 3 of the 14th ammendment to Trump considering it was written after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate members from being members of Congress?

I'm not by any means saying I think this is clear cut - there is an interpretive process going on here. And ultimately because the clause being interpreted is in the federal Constitution, the SCOTUS will have jurisdiction and justiciability. But dismissing this as nothing more than election interference dismisses the very clear record on what Trump did. And whether that amounts to engaging in insurrection will ultimately be for the Supreme Court - but ballot eligibility is a matter for state courts as an initial matter and the Colorado result has clear and obvious support. It may be found that it's not quite enough to meet the definition of insurrection, but there are no other formal requirements. There is no requirement that Trump have been charged or convicted of anything - it's purely on the historical record alone.

It's definitely election interference and it was a horrible decision to do that at all much less in a state that Trump wasn't going to win.

Don't be surprised when Trump gains even more support and gets another bounce in the polls.

Anyone who supports this decision should never be able to claim they are trying to protect democracy.